See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/366757069

MBSE Grid: Operational Analysis for the Implementation of Hydroelectric

Group Health Monitoring and Management Unit

Chapter in Communications in Computer and Information Science · January 2023

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-20490-6_32

CITATION READS

1 381

4 authors:

Mohammed Bouaicha Nadia Machkour

University of Hassan II Casablanca Université Hassan II Mohammedia
7 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS 50 PUBLICATIONS 161 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Imad El Adraoui Mourad Zegrari

Abdelmalek Essaâdi University Université Hassan II Mohammedia
24 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 401 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Imad El Adraoui on 21 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MBSE Grid: Operational Analysis for the
Implementation of Hydroelectric Group Health
Monitoring and Management Unit

Mohammed Bouaicha1[0000-0003-2837-4197], Nadia Machkour1, Imad El Adraoui2[0000-0001-

5924-8914]
and Mourad Zegrari1
1 Laboratoryof Complex Cyber Physical Systems (LCCPS), ENSAM, Hassan II University,
Mers Sultan BP 9167, Casablanca, Morocco
2 Laboratory of Engineering, Industrial Management and Innovation (IMII), The Faculty of

Sciences and Technology, Hassan 1st University, PO Box 577, Settat, Morocco

*[email protected]

Abstract. Any study or project within the framework of system design has cho-
sen to start the modeling phase with the model-based systems engineering ap-
proach (MBSE), it will encounter decision-making difficulties with the ap-
proach. to adopt. During the last two decades, many MBSE methodologies have
been developed, but the majority of them present an incomplete or abstract ar-
chitectural framework for organizing the modeling work. The MBSE Grid-
based Systems Modeling Language (SysML) approach has made the modeling
task easier for system engineers. Indeed, SysML constitutes a powerful tool, us-
ing its diagrams, to model the points of view according to the principle of de-
velopment of requirement, behavior, or structure of the system. This paper
summarizes the MBSE methodologies most used in research work and devel-
opment projects. In the context of our study, the MBSE Grid approach is adopt-
ed with slight modifications concerning the names of the domains of the grid.
By combining with Bombardier Transport SysMM's MBSE methodology,
which consists of three main phases, the proposed MBSE grid presents a model-
ing approach by analysis: the operational, functional, and technical of the sys-
tem. The purpose of this work is to conduct an operational analysis, for the im-
plementation of a Health Monitoring and Management Unit (HMMU) of a hy-
dropower group.

Keywords: System Engineering, MBSE, MBSE Grid, Operational Analysis,

SysML, Hydroelectric group.

1 Introduction

Systems Engineering (SE) is an interdisciplinary methodological approach to master-

ing the design of complex systems and products. The practices of this approach are
now listed in standards, carried out using methods, and supported by tools. Systems
2

Engineering Methods provide technical approaches based on Model-Based Systems

Engineering (MBSE) to carry out these general activities. Language and modeling
tools now computerized assist the implementation of processes and methods.
Any MBSE approach promises to facilitate communication between different en-
gineering disciplines [1]. Therefore, it should support different architecture views for
a single model, offering guidance on how to start modeling the system, how to create
the model structure, which views to create, and in what order [2], [3]. To meet this
challenge, the approach is obliged to implement the appropriate framework and pro-
cess, the language, as well as the specific software tool. To ensure a successful im-
plementation of MBSE, the modeling language must be combined with the methodol-
ogy to become useful [4]. Recent MBSE approaches adopt the Systems Modeling
Language (SysML), but it does not provide guidelines or recommendations on the
modeling process [5], [6].
The systems engineering community has recognized and used many MBSE meth-
odologies over the past two decades. The most popular among them are IBM Harmo-
ny, OSEM, Vitech, SYSMOD, and Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAF) for
systems engineering, such as DoDAF / MODAF, TOGAF, NAF. A new approach
called MBSE Grid was proposed in 2015 by [2]. It is a grid organized in a Zachman-
style matrix [7], where rows represent viewpoints, columns represent pillars of sys-
tems engineering, and cells represent different views of the system model. The MBSE
Grid offers a simplified approach and gives unambiguous guidelines for the modeling
process using SysML.
The number of methods available for the MBSE is not large and not significant.
Most of them provide an incomplete or abstract architectural framework for organiz-
ing the modeling work. In this paper, the MBSE Grid approach is adopted, the objec-
tive of which is to focus our study on the operational analysis of the process for the
implementation of a health monitoring and management unit (HMMU). through a
vibratory signature of a hydroelectric group installed in the 90s, and today has cracks.
The precise definition of the mission of the HMMU unit, the services it offers, and the
relationships (requirements) with its environment (Hydroelectric group, User, control
room, etc.) are one of the most important phases and critiques of the design of com-
plex systems [3], [8]. More than 80% of the faults in a system or product come from
the requirements definition stage [9].
We start our article in section II with a presentation of the work modeled by the
different MBSE methodologies. Section III is devoted to the operational analysis by
the MBSE Grid approach, for the implementation of the unit for monitoring and man-
aging the state of health of a hydroelectric group. In section IV, conclusions are
drawn, and future goals are revealed.

2 MBSE Approaches

The review of the different MBSE methodologies has been presented in [2], and this
section describes and analyzes the most used.
 3

2.1 MBSE methodologies

• IBM Rational Harmony for SE. The process of system development is represented
by the classic "V" waterfall diagram, where the flow is iterative for several cycles.
The left branch describes the design from top to bottom, while the right side shows
the implementation and testing phases from the bottom up to system acceptance
[10].
• Object-Oriented Systems Engineering Methodology (OOSEM). It is a design ap-
proach based on systems engineering models with object-oriented techniques.
OOSEM developed in 2010 by INCOSE, aims to reconcile the processes practiced
by any project or organization for the development of a system [11].
• Vitech MBSE Methodology. Vitech's MBSE methodology comprises four main
systems engineering activities: requirements analysis, behavioral analysis, architec-
ture, and verification and validation [13]. SE activities are linked to four areas: Re-
quirements, Behavior, Architecture, and Verification and Validation [14]. The four
domains are all executed at a given level of detail before a transition to the next
layer takes place.
• JPL State Analysis (SA). The methodology was developed within the California
Institute of Technology by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). It provides activi-
ties for modeling the behavior of the system as a function of state variables. Mod-
els show how the state evolves [16].
• Systems Modeling Toolbox (SYSMOD). Based on the SysML language, it begins
the modeling with the description of the context of the project, to reach the end of
the internal structure of the system and these parameters, simultaneously perform-
ing the steps of elaboration of requirements; definition of the context of the system;
specification of use cases and process modeling.

The MBSE methodologies described above solve different missions of the systems
engineering process [18], [19]. They use step-by-step iterations for data collection.
However, this does not provide considerable support for identifying levels of abstrac-
tion, which can become an obstacle in assigning responsibilities to stakeholders.

2.2 Enterprise Architecture Frameworks

The process of analyzing a system by iterations, from viewpoints (layers of abstrac-
tion), also has its origins in several Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAF). We
can distinguish two categories of FAEs: those oriented toward defense and those ori-
ented toward the industry.
The Ministry of Defense Architecture Frameworks (DoDAF/MODAF) and the
NATO Architecture Framework (NAF) are standardized frameworks for defense ar-
chitectures, that allow modeling in different levels of abstraction. These frameworks
are similar and use the same modeling language, developed by the OMG, called Uni-
fied Profile for DoDAF and MODAF (UPDM) [20].
The TOGAF, FEAF, and Zachman architectural frameworks are particularly used
in scientific research work and considered more oriented towards industrial architec-
tures [21], [22]. They are based on UML languages. Lack of protocol for the ex-
4

change and storage of information is a handicap of industrial AAFs, unlike defense

AAFs.
The latest UPDM 3.0 version has been renamed to UAF 1.0 (Unified Architecture
Framework), to support the needs of areas, like civil engineering, security support,
human-machine integration, etc.
Other architectural frameworks exist in the world of transportation and defense in-
dustries such as BT SysMM and KDA. The BT SysMM (Bombardier Transport Sys-
tem Modeling Method) consists of three phases to analyze and model the system of
interest (Figure 1). The operational analysis phase aims to specify the relationships
between the system and its environment, the second functional analysis phase aims to
explain the functioning of the system, while the technical analysis phase defines how
the physical components are organized. (Hardware, Software) to implement the sys-
tem [23]. Another methodology applied to Kongsberg Defense and Aerospace
(KDA). This approach depicted in Figure 2 is carried out in two stages: specification
and design. The design stage takes place from a functional, logical, and physical point
of view [24].

Fig. 1. BT System Modeling Method

Fig. 2. KDA System Architecture Framework

EAFs methodologies present several problems which are summed up in the com-
plexity of the model and the less clear relationships between the different layers
 5

(Specification, Design, and Structure). EAFs are very powerful for building the
framework of enterprise architectures, but not quite suitable for systems, they are
relatively complex for systems engineers. It is, for this reason, a new MBSE approach
based on the strengths of existing methodologies, which should be oriented to the
modeling of systems.

2.3 MBSE Grid

The initial MBSE Grid approach applied in 2015 by [2] briefly describes all of the
nine cells making up the matrix by specifying the four main pillars of systems engi-
neering (Requirements, Behavior, Structure, and Parameters of the System) and how
to manage the different abstraction layers (Concept, Problem, and Solution).
Adjustments were applied by [25] applied to the Concept and Problem Abstraction
Layers. The changes relate firstly to the two cells “C1 User Needs” and “P1 System
Requirements” which have been renamed respectively to “C1 Stakeholder needs” and
“P1 Goals and Objectives”, secondly the merger of the “Concept C4 Layer Effective-
ness Measurements with Problem Layer P4 Cell”.
Another work carried out by [26] where the initial MBSE grid is kept with two ad-
justments made (Figure 3). The first modification concerns the name of cell C1, re-
named to “C1 Stakeholder Needs”. The comparison made by the authors with existing
EAF frameworks, reveals two main points of view in harmony with the MBSE grid,
to manage the abstraction layers, one area to define the problem, and another to pro-
pose a solution.

Fig. 3. MBSE Grid framework

The proposed grid has two areas: the problem and the solution. The first «problem»
domain first describes the system (Need of Stakeholders, Use Case of the System and
its context, and the measurement of parameters), then the expected behaviors of the
subsystems, these two tasks are designated respectively "Black Box" and "White
Box".
6

To facilitate the modeling task, the authors developed a SysML MBSE grid by the
method of instantiating each of the nine views (cells) of the system model by SysML
diagrams (Figure 4).

Fig. 4. MBSE Grid mapping to SysML

2.4 MBSE Grid adopted

For this paper, the MBSE Grid approach updated by [26] is adopted with slight modi-
fications concerning the domain names of the grid. Combining with Bombardier
Transport SysMM's MBSE methodology which takes place in three main phases by
analysis: operational, functional, and technical. In our modeling approach, we also use
these three main analysis approaches (Figure 5).

Fig. 5. MBSE Grid framework adopted

 7

• Operational Analysis: its purpose is to define the mission of the system, the ser-
vices it offers, and the relationships with its environment.
• Functional Analysis: it aims to explain the logical functioning of the system.
• Technical or Structural Analysis: it presents how the physical components (Hard-
ware, Software) are structured for the proper functioning of the system.

The purpose of the study is to conduct an operational analysis of the MBSE Grid ap-
proach adopted, to implement a Health Monitoring and Management Unit (HMMU)
of a hydroelectric group.

3 Operational analysis of the HMMU

3.1 Description of the hydroelectric group

The hydroelectric group object of our study consists of:
• A turbine designating the device whose mission will be to convert the hy-
draulic energy of the fluid entering the group into mechanical energy.
• An alternator that consists of converting the mechanical energy supplied by
the turbine into electrical energy, through the stator and the rotor.
• Adjustable valves, called guidelines, regulating the flow of the fluid at the
inlet of the turbine valves.
• The blades of the turbine transform the hydrodynamic energy of the fluid in-
to rotational driving energy.
• A common axis of rotation of the turbine and the alternator, the purpose of
which is to drive the generator (Alternator).
The 80 MW hydroelectric group is operated alternately with other groups in the
plant, which depending on the network, start or stop the production of electrical ener-
gy. Installed for three decades, the unit now has cracks in certain welds of the braces.
To assess this defect, two studies were carried out by [27], [28] in partnership with a
service provider specializing in condition-based maintenance of rotating machines
using vibration analysis, the objective of which is to find out whether the vibrations
are at the origin of these cracks.
The group's axis is carried by 3 bearings that ensure the rotational guidance of the
turbine and the alternator: an upper alternator bearing (PAS), a turbine bearing (PTU),
and a lower alternator bearing (PAI). On these bearings are installed the sensors for
the measurement of vibrations and the movements of the axes of the bearings.
The diagnosis was carried out by performing tests in several operating modes to
determine the types of faults that the group shaft may have. The identified faults are
unbalanced, angular misalignment of the upper alternator bearing, and high displace-
ments of the centers of the turbine and upper alternator bearings, the values of which
place them in critical areas. The summary that emerged during the study [28] provides
for permanent monitoring of the bearing clearances, the objective of which is to pre-
dict the horizon for exceeding the thresholds of the standardized global vibration lev-
els and the bearing clearance limits recommended by the manufacturer. A unit, of
great importance, that deals with the monitoring and management of the state of
health (HMMU) of the hydraulic unit will have to be installed.
8

Fig. 6. Arrangement of measuring points on the bearings

3.2 Operational Analysis of the HMMU

The first step in the business analysis phase is to define Stakeholder needs, including
guidelines related to regulations, standards, etc. The SysML requirements diagram
(req) is best suited to express the needs. Each specified need is manifested by a re-
quirement. All the needs can be expressed in a diagram view.

In the case of the HMMU unit, two needs are analyzed in-depth:
• SN1: Unit Management Modes - The unit must be able to monitor the ma-
chine in modes: Offline or Online.
• SN2: Data Type - The unit collects and analyzes vibration signals and dis-
placement measurements of the bearing pins.
These needs are expressed and represented in the SysML requirements diagram
(Figure 7). These requirements are then refined and analyzed. The "Unit Management
Modes" requirement is refined by the "Monitor and Manage Machine Heath" use case
(uc) (Figure 8). Use cases (uc) express the actions or tasks performed by the actors
and the unit. The use case diagram must be developed according to the context of the
use of the unit, thus Figure 8 details the use case "Monitor and Manage Machine
Heath" in the context "Machine On or In Maintenance Intervention".
A use case is clarified by a flow of actions in the form of a scenario of exchanges
between the actors and the system.
 9

Fig. 7. Stakeholder needs expressed in requirements diagram

Fig. 8. Diagram Unit Use Cases

This scenario is represented by the SysML activity diagram, where the actors and the
system are modeled by channels. Figure 9 details the "Monitor and manage machine
Heath" use case scenario, where unit activities are considered top-level functions.
10

Fig. 9. Use Case Scenario

Subsequently, the definition of the context of the system is necessary to show how
the HMMU unit interacts with its external environment (User, Machine, D.B Storage,
Control Room, etc.). The SysML internal block diagram (Figure 10) is used as well,
to manifest these interactions in the context of "Machine On or In Maintenance Inter-
vention".
 11

Fig. 10. Unit System Context

The final step of the analysis is the specification of the non-functional objectives of
the stakeholders submitted digitally. This step is called "measures of effectiveness".
A separate block will be created to manifest these operational parameters of the
HMMU unit, shown in the SysML block definition diagram (Figure 11).

Fig. 11. Measurements of Effectiveness

12

The relationships between the diagrams (Traceability) make it possible to organize

the models and to follow the steps of the MBSE process throughout the system mod-
eling process. The relationships made during the development of diagram models
(Requirement, use case, etc.) are illustrated in figure 12.

Fig. 12. Relationships between MBSE models

4 Conclusion

Many systems modeling approaches have been proposed and used in case studies or
real projects, in the field of engineering, or in the context of enterprise architecture.
Most of them are particularly conceptual and offer a complex or even ambiguous
approach, are difficult to implement and it does not rely on a modeling language
based on models. The most recent is the MBSE Grid methodology based on view-
points (abstraction domains).
It has been adopted and adjusted from perspectives of behavioral, functional, and
technical analyzes, which will be represented using the diagrams of the SysML lan-
guage.
 13

The successful implementation of this approach on real projects prompted us to use

it in our modeling approach for the implementation of a monitoring and surveillance
unit for the health of the hydroelectric group, within the framework of a maintenance
management policy using a predictive strategy. The operational analysis process de-
ployed, including the partial results presented in this paper, has proven its effective-
ness in modeling systems. Our short-term objective is to continue our implementation
project of the HMMU unit by proposing the modeling suite by the two phases of func-
tional and technical analyzes allowing respectively to explain the operation of the
system and how it will be its future structure.

References
1. C. Delp, D. Lam, E. Fosse, L. Cin-Young, “Model-based document and report generation
for systems engineering”, Aerospace Conference, IEEE, (2013).
2. A. Morkevicius, L. Bisikirskiene, N. Jankevicius, “We Choose MBSE: What’s Next?”,
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Complex Systems Design & Man-
agement, CSD&M, pp. 313 (2015).
3. A. Morkevicius, N. Jankevicius, “An approach: SysML-based automated requirements
verification”, Systems Engineering (ISSE), IEEE International Symposium, pp. 28-30
(2015).
4. P. Pearce, M. Hause, ISO-15288, “OOSEM and Model-Based Submarine Design”, (2008).
5. J. A. Estefan, “Survey of Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) Methodologies”,
INCOSE MBSE Initiative, (2008).
6. J. S. Topper, N. C. Horner, “Model-Based Systems Engineering in Support of Complex
Systems Development”, Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, vol. 32, no. 1, (2013).
7. [7] J. A. Zachman, “A framework for information systems architecture”, IBM Syst. J., vol.
26, no. 3, pp. 276–292 (1987).
8. A. Gregoriadesa, J. Hadjicostia and others, “Human requirements validation for complex
systems design”, 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics
(AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences, AHFE (2015).
9. I. F. Hooks and K. A. Farry, “Customer-centered products: Creating successful products
through smart requirements management”, New York: AMACOM, (2001).
10. F. Chadburn, “Tailoring the Harmony/SE MBSE Process for Automotive Sector”,
INCOSE UK Annual Systems Engineering Conference, (2017).
11. P. Pearce, and M. Hause, “ISO-15288: OOSEM and Model-Based Submarine Design”,
(2008).
12. K. Pietrusewicz “Metamodelling for Design of Mechatronic and Cyber-Physical Systems”,
Applied Sciences, 9(3):376, (2019).
13. L. B. JR, and J. E. Long, “Role of System Engineering Across The System Life Cycle”,
Vienna, Virginia, (2007).
http://www.vitechcorp.com/resources/technical_papers/200701031632040.baker_long.pdf
(visited on 09/01/2020).
14. T. B. Stuart, “Network Centric Architectures: Are We Up To The Task?”, In INCOSE In-
ternational Symposium, vol.15, no. 1 pp. 600–609, (2005).
15. A. L. David and B. S. Zane, “A primer for model-based systems engineering”, Second edi-
tion, Vitech, (2011).
 14

16. M. D. Ingham, R. D. Rasmussen, M. B. Bennett, A. C. Moncada, “Generating Require-

ments for Complex Embedded Systems Using State Analysis”, Acta Astronautica, vol. 58,
Issue. 12, pp. 648-661 (2006).
17. J. A. Estefan, “INCOSE Survey of MBSE Methodologies”, INCOSE TD 2007-003-02,
Seattle, WA, USA, (2008).
18. C. E. Dickerson, D. N. Mavris, “Architecture and Principles of Systems Engineering”, Bo-
ca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press Auerbach Publications, (2009).
19. S. Friedenthal, R. Griego, M. Sampson, “INCOSE model-based systems engineering
(MBSE) initiative”, INCOSE International Symposium, USA, (2007).
20. OMG, “Unified Profile for the DoDAF and MODAF”, Needham, MA, (2009).
21. The Open Group, TOGAF Version 9, Zaltbommel: Van Haren Publishing, (2009).
22. M. Lankhorst, “Enterprise Architecture at Work”, Berlin: Springer, (2009).
23. O. Naas, M. Chami, P. Oggier, M. Heinz, “Real World Application of MBSE at Bom-
bardier Transportation”, SWISSED, (2015).
24. S. E. Soegaard, “Adopting MBSE using SysML in System Development – Joint Strike
Missile (JSM)”, No Magic World Symposium, (2016).
25. D. Mazeika, A. Morkevicius, A. Aleksandraviciene, “MBSE driven approach for defining
problem domain”, 11th Systems of Systems Engineering Conference, SoSE this link is
disabled, (2016).
26. A. Morkevicius, A. Aleksandraviciene, D. Mazeika, L. Bisikirskiene, Z. Strolia, “MBSE
Grid: A Simplified SysML-Based Approach for Modeling Complex Systems", 27th Annu-
al INCOSE International Symposium, (2017).
27. I. El Adraoui, M. Bouaicha, H. Gziri, M. Zegrari, “Implementation of a Diagnostic Ap-
proach Based on Vibration Analysis: Case Study of a Hydroelectric Group”, International
Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 69, issue. 9, pp. 97-106 (2021).
28. M. Bouaicha, M. Guerroum, I. El Adraoui, M. Zegrari, H. Gziri, A. Ait Elmahjoub, “Di-
agnosis of Mechanical Faults Affecting a Hydroelectric Group by Vibration Analysis”, In-
ternational Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, Volume 11, Issue
11, pp. 86-100 (2021).

View publication stats